VC3-04015

VC3-04015

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found, on a correctness review, that the RPD did not err: the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Merida is unsafe or that agents of harm are motivated to pursue them there; the IFA test's both prongs are satisfied for Merida; most proffered new evidence was inadmissible as it pre‑dated the RPD decision and was reasonably available; only limited portions of the sister's statement were admitted; and the request for an oral hearing failed.

Citation
VC3-04015
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Admission of New Evidence, Standard of Review, Section 96 and 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Admission of New Evidence Standard of Review Section 96 and 97 IRPA

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether an Internal Flight Alternative (Merida, Yucatan) was available and viable
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found, on a correctness review, that the RPD did not err: the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Merida is unsafe or that agents of harm are motivated to pursue them there; the IFA test's both prongs are satisfied for Merida; most proffered new evidence was inadmissible as it pre‑dated the RPD decision and was reasonably available; only limited portions of the sister's statement were admitted; and the request for an oral hearing failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • New evidence mostly refused; only two paragraphs of the sister's statement describing her life in Morelos (dated XXXX XXXX, 2023) admitted